# So is the war in Afghanistan a good war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107 "2009-07-06T18:22:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/101 "2009-07-09T00:33:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, not even in theory. “Ruthless” is not a positive, its surrenders all value, and a method that generates more enemies than it neutralizes is not “effective”. > > And we seem to have crossed information streams, here. I was under the impression that we did fire upon the funeral, that it was a “Taliban” funeral was offered as some justification, you appear to believe we abstained. > > Anybody got the straight, ah, skinny? Also, I realize that utter ruthlessness isn’t an option if we are going to retain our moral fibre in the midst of all this ugliness. That’s why I put that little “in theory” in parenthesis. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/102 "2009-07-09T00:36:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Dude, if we were to “equal their ruthlessness”, we’d probably nuke the country, or at the _least_ do our level best to slaughter everyone in it. (Ruthlessness gets more bang for the buck when you have the ability to make lots and lots more ‘bangs’.) After a certain point there won’t be more recruits for terrorists because they’d all be dead. > > Not to say there probably wouldn’t be negative consequences to this - but then, there are _reasons_ most of us don’t usually get that ruthless. Actually, no. Even Al Qaeda wasn’t trying to kill as many people as possible; they went for symbolic targets, not, say, a football stadium full of people. If we were to “equal their ruthlessness”, we wouldn’t try to kill them all; we’d do something like bomb the Kaaba in Mecca. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/103 "2009-07-09T00:42:04Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > [http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=2884](http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=2884) > [American Crusader: Taliban Funeral](http://yanksgohome.blogspot.com/2006/09/taliban-funeral.html) > And from a reputable news agency: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/) > > Maybe we fired upon some other funeral, but this is the specific instance where we did not that I was referring to. Duly noted, with thanks. I might have looked it up myself, but am lazy and easily…hey, do mosquitoes have tits? No, right, not mammals…where was I? **John** , we are of one mind on this. Got a nickel says you’re the one who’s the more surprised. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/104 "2009-07-09T00:44:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > …we’d do something like bomb the Kaaba in Mecca. God, man, don’t even _think_ it! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/105 "2009-07-09T00:54:09Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Also, I realize that utter ruthlessness isn’t an option if we are going to retain our moral fibre in the midst of all this ugliness. That’s why I put that little “in theory” in parenthesis. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/106 "2009-07-09T00:55:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually, no. Even Al Qaeda wasn’t trying to kill as many people as possible; they went for symbolic targets, not, say, a football stadium full of people. If we were to “equal their ruthlessness”, we wouldn’t try to kill them all; we’d do something like bomb the Kaaba in Mecca. Gee, a couple gigantic skyscrapers full of people either at or going to work isn’t enough? Symbolic only? Well over 2,000 people didn’t die? Maybe you are overestimating Al-Quadea’s ability, or underestimating their own brand of ruthless behavior. In any case, you’ll no doubt justify it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/107 "2009-07-09T00:56:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **John** , we are of one mind on this. Got a nickel says you’re the one who’s the more surprised. Well, you laid out your position more fully than I did earlier in the thread, so I’m not really surprised since I pretty much already knew where you were coming from. I’m generally anti-war. It takes a lot for me to drum up support for a war, especially one by the USA-- we’re the big guys on the block, and shouldn’t need to look for fist fights. And, as someone said upthread, war is hell, and if we are unable to stomach lots of bad shit happening, then we shouldn’t go to war. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/108 "2009-07-09T01:00:27Z")
One other thing… We libertarian-leaning types often side with the lefties on issues of war, just as we often side with the righties on economic issues. I’m all lefty when it comes to going to war! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/109 "2009-07-09T01:09:34Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Gee, a couple gigantic skyscrapers full of people either at or going to work isn’t enough? Symbolic only? Well over 2,000 people didn’t die? Not “symbolic only”; _ **primarily** _ symbolic. They weren’t two random skyscrapers, after all. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/110 "2009-07-09T01:27:38Z")
My biggest problem with Afghanistan once the cat was out of the bag re: Iraq is our poor level of commitment. That was the war we should have been engaging in with gusto from the beginning. The lessons supposedly learned from Vietnam, that were then applied to Gulf Wars I: Wars Of My Daddy were then unlearned. If you’re going to do it…DO IT. Don’t hold back. Have a cause, a reason, a plan an exit strategy, something the people of the republic can rally behind as just and reasonable. Put your resources behind it. Don’t flag or waver in your will. The damn justifiable war became an afterthought once we invaded Iraq. I have been ashamed of my initial support of the Iraq war, because I believed in the post-9/11 accusations of WMD. That has generally been proven false, and I am chagrined. Afghanistan, on the other hand…we need to get this one right. If we can. We have the just cause…but do we have the will after years of depletion in Iraq? This is not to mention the logistical nightmare that is fighting a limited-engagement “war” against a loosely-unified group of tribes in the most hostile terrain imaginable on Earth…the Soviets couldn’t get it right with overwhelmng force, but maybe we can…with technology and an urban-assault approach that “take and hold” works for. McChyrstal is a motherfucker. He may well craft a successful campaign. I certainly wouldn’t underestimate him. Eradicating lots of heroin producing opium fields would be a nice bonus. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/111 "2009-07-09T01:57:22Z")
9-11-01 Sept, 11 ,2001 . That is a long time ago. Are you people actually pretending this foray into Afghanistan is about that attack. Everybody involved is dead or out of El -Queda. This is not about 911. We ended that attack when we went into Iraq. By leaving them outside our radar for so long, we sent clear signals that they were not important enemies. Now they suddenly have to pay again ? This is about establishing military bases in the middle east. We never seem to have enough of those. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/112 "2009-07-09T02:41:16Z")
That doesn’t make much sense. We have been in Kuwait and Bahrain for some time - without much stress to the locals or our defense budget. Why would we want to establish bases in hostile territory when we have them relatively close by in friendly territory? I don’t think this is about bases. Of all of the strange conspiracy theories offered, this is the least convincing one. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/113 "2009-07-09T02:44:18Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > 9-11-01 Sept, 11 ,2001 . That is a long time ago. Are you people actually pretending this foray into Afghanistan is about that attack. Everybody involved is dead or out of El -Queda. This is not about 911. We ended that attack when we went into Iraq. By leaving them outside our radar for so long, we sent clear signals that they were not important enemies. Now they suddenly have to pay again ? This is about establishing military bases in the middle east. We never seem to have enough of those. OK, assuming you are correct (and you aren’t, at least, not totally…the war in Afghanistan has continued apace before, during and will continue after the Iraq War…and yes, our involvement there due to the 9/11 attacks is a primary factor in going over there, and NO, not everyone from Al-Qaueda is dead from 2001, that was only a mere eight years ago, they were never outside our radar, we always maintained that they were important enemies..), even if it was all about military bases in the ME, I’m about convinced we need them now. If we are going to remain the world’s superpower and maintain our “way of life” (however you want to interpret that statement, good or bad), we WILL need them, because the ME is the newly fomented battleground of tomorrow due to resource allocation. I am under no illusion that America doesn’t attempt to subjugate countries and their leaders by use of veiled threats, political persuasion, America-centric alliances, NATO, or whatever. By that token, I suppose that I (and we) have to accept a certain level of that, as there is these kinds of intruige going on at every level within every country on earth. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/114 "2009-07-09T02:58:07Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > That doesn’t make much sense. We have been in Kuwait and Bahrain for some time - without much stress to the locals or our defense budget. > > Why would we want to establish bases in hostile territory when we have them relatively close by in friendly territory? > > I don’t think this is about bases. Of all of the strange conspiracy theories offered, this is the least convincing one. Turning Iraq into a place to establish bases was part of the reason we invaded. We built huge elaborate “enduring bases” and a huge embassy under the assumption that we’d be there indefinitely. Iraq wasn’t SUPPOSED to be hostile territory; they were supposed to love us. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/115 "2009-07-09T03:09:05Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Turning Iraq into a place to establish bases was part of the reason we invaded. We built huge elaborate “enduring bases” and a huge embassy under the assumption that we’d be there indefinitely. Iraq wasn’t SUPPOSED to be hostile territory; they were supposed to love us. While establishing bases that are permanent is underhanded, it also serves a valuable purpose if we are going to retain our hegemony over our need for oil. Not saying it’s right, because it isn’t, but…it is existent. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/116 "2009-07-09T05:03:36Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > **Elucidator** and **Onlentzero** , nobody is trying to tell anyone to shut up, or to not have your opinion on matters. Or that your opinion is lesser than mine because I have served and have a deep and cherished family history of military service dating back to WWI and includes direct family members in every American conflict since then. Then what was the point of you bringing it up in the first place? And then again only to refute your first usage? > [@](#): > > I am railing against the position that because civilian casualties occur that they are _somehow intentional in accordance with military operational planning_. They are not. Incorrect in the wide scope intended. Hard as it is to get due to the US’s official policy of refusing to provide numbers of the other side’s casualties (“we don’t do body counts”) there’s **proof** that Rumsfeld was at the very least, callous, when it came to civilian deaths: > [@](#): > > […Air war commanders were required to obtain the approval of Defense Secretary Donald L. Rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was thought likely to result in deaths of more than 30 civilians. **More than 50 such strikes were proposed, and all of them were approved** …](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9285.htm) – bolding mine. * * * As for Afghanistan, I agree with whomever wrote that this might end up being “Obama’s Vietnam.” Though initially I was in favor of the strike I think I’ve read enough on the situation over the years as to conclude that it is a no-win situation. If you tripled your efforts, above and beyond the surge mandated by Obama, odds are still high that you won’t be able to restore any kind of functionality to what is essentially an arbitrary nation composed of feuding tribes. A nation about the size of Somalia with triple the population – and I bet most of us remember how well the efforts of the International community to restore order in that particular chaos went. * * * Concerning the OP, I think labeling any war as “good” is the definition of a misnomer. At best it can be said that wars are either “just” or not – and even then there’s quite the gray area in many/most of them. After all, for all the talk about technological gains, major conflicts in the past and current century have only _trended upwards concerning the ratio of civilian vs military deaths_. Of course there is a reason for that – weapons might be “smarter” but the reality of it is that the major concern in their design is to inflict the maximum amount of punishment on the opposing side while keeping the soldiers safer. Add that to the well worn strategy of air raids (safest way to kill the “enemy”) and you get what we have. To wit: \*\*\*\*\*[**World War I casualties**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) \*\*\*\*\*[**World War II casualties**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties) \*\*\*\*\*[**Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century**](http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm) All that said, ask me for an aswer as to what to do in Afghanistan and I’ll admit I honestly don’t have one – other than letting sort things out themselves. May or may not be bloodier that way, but again, what we’re doing there remains nebulous at best. Couple of very good and recent articles on that particular clusterfuck: [**A quagmire for Obama**](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/07/a_quagmire_for_obama/?rss_id=Boston%2BGlobe%2B--%2BEditorial%2FOp-ed%2Bpages) [**In the fog, remember: victory is impossible in Afghanistan**](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6632876.ece) What I found particularly interesting from the latter is the analysis of emphasis in the use of acronyms and military jargon so often applied to describe the situation in Afghanistan – we see it here, in this very thread, with the much trotted “collateral damage” BS. After all, dead is dead no matter what you call it. So yes, they really are as vapid and meaningless as they sound: > [@](#): > > …Grasp, instead, the essential incoherence. > > AFPAK, ANCOP, ANDS, ANP, ANSF, APPS, ASNF, AAQ/FF, APP, CARD, CDC, CISCA, CISTICA, CJTF, CN, CNPA (ANP), COMISAF, CPCC, CSOFC, CSTC, ECC, EUPOL, FDD, FTD, GPI, HIG, HIGHK, ICPT, IDLG, IGLC, INFO-OPS, IRCTA, ISAF, IU, MCN, NDCS, NDS, OCCC, OEF, OMLET, OPDIESEL, PC, PRT, SITC, UNODC, UNPOL, TB . . . > > You’ll see lots of As there, sometimes standing for Afghanistan, but usually Assistance. The Fs are usually Force. Any contradiction between assistance and force is helpfully blurred by the reduction to acronyms. The infestation of Cs generally denotes Committee, Control or Command. The many Ds and Ns often stand for Drugs, National or Narcotics. Take the CJTF, which is the Criminal Justice Task Force, to be distinguished from the ANP (the Afghan National Police), partially overseen but not exactly trained by EUPOL (European Union Police something-or-other), who are not the same thing as bilateral police assistance, and who are assisted by the ASNF (the Afghan Special Narcotics Force), probably answerable to the MCN (Ministry of Counter-Narcotics) with help from the IU (Intelligence Unit), to be distinguished from SITC (the Special Intelligence and Counter Terrorism body) and operating according to the NDCS (National Drugs Control Strategy), a subset of the ANDS (Afghan National Development Strategy). If it weren’t so tragic, this would be a comic novel by Evelyn Waugh. > > Acronyms are not the only refuge. Others lullaby their brains to sleep swathed in the acrylic blankets of a new language now suffocating the ministries, missions and shirt-sleeved development-wallahs in shiny white Toyota 4x4s: a hideous hybrid of NGO-speak, Whitehall-chic, political pap and military jargon . . . > > “Across the piece”, “agent for change”, “alternative livelihoods”, “asymmetric means of operation”, “capability milestones”, “civilian surge”, “conditionality”, “demand- reduction”, “drivers of radicalisation”, “fixed-wing assets”, “fledgeling capabilities”, “injectors of risk”, “kinetic situation”, “licit livelihoods”, “light footprint”, “lily pads”, “messaging campaign”, “partnering- and-mentoring”, “capacity-building”, “strategic review”, “reconciliation and reintegration”, “rolling out a top-down approach”, “shake — clear — hold — build”, “upskilling”. > > **It’s so, so important not to understand the meaning but to hear the noise** … – bolding mine. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/117 "2009-07-09T07:26:57Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > **Elucidator** and **Onlentzero** , nobody is trying to tell anyone to shut up, or to not have your opinion on matters. Or that your opinion is lesser than mine because I have served and have a deep and cherished family history of military service dating back to WWI and includes direct family members in every American conflict since then. Big shmeal. I have ancestry in American conflicts dating from WWII back to King Phillip’s War, and a branch that saw service in the armies of Their Royal Majesties Karl XIV Johan, Oscar I, and Karl XV of Sweden. (Never go toe-to-toe with a genealogist when meaningless credentials are on the line.) I’ve just not seen fit to mention them previously in this thread _because they have no freaking relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand_. Just like your family military tradition. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/118 "2009-07-09T09:27:19Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > As for Afghanistan, I agree with whomever wrote that this might end up being “Obama’s Vietnam.” Though initially I was in favor of the strike I think I’ve read enough on the situation over the years as to conclude that it is a no-win situation. If you tripled your efforts, above and beyond the surge mandated by Obama, odds are still high that you won’t be able to restore any kind of functionality to what is essentially an arbitrary nation composed of feuding tribes. A nation about the size of Somalia with triple the population – and I bet most of us remember how well the efforts of the International community to restore order in that particular chaos went. > > * * * > > Concerning the OP, I think labeling any war as “good” is the definition of a misnomer. At best it can be said that wars are either “just” or not – and even then there’s quite the gray area in many/most of them. After all, for all the talk about technological gains, major conflicts in the past and current century have only _trended upwards concerning the ratio of civilian vs military deaths_. Of course there is a reason for that – weapons might be “smarter” but the reality of it is that the major concern in their design is to inflict the maximum amount of punishment on the opposing side while keeping the soldiers safer. Add that to the well worn strategy of air raids (safest way to kill the “enemy”) and you get what we have. To wit: > > \*\*\*\*\*[**World War I casualties**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) > > \*\*\*\*\*[**World War II casualties**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties) > > \*\*\*\*\*[**Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century**](http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm) > > All that said, ask me for an aswer as to what to do in Afghanistan and I’ll admit I honestly don’t have one – other than letting sort things out themselves. May or may not be bloodier that way, but again, what we’re doing there remains nebulous at best. > > Couple of very good and recent articles on that particular clusterfuck: > > [**A quagmire for Obama**](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/07/a_quagmire_for_obama/?rss_id=Boston%2BGlobe%2B--%2BEditorial%2FOp-ed%2Bpages) > > [**In the fog, remember: victory is impossible in Afghanistan**](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6632876.ece) > > What I found particularly interesting from the latter is the analysis of emphasis in the use of acronyms and military jargon so often applied to describe the situation in Afghanistan – we see it here, in this very thread, with the much trotted “collateral damage” BS. After all, dead is dead no matter what you call it. So yes, they really are as vapid and meaningless as they sound: > > – bolding mine. > > Indeed. That’s an excellent post, **RedFury**. I agree that my use of the adjective good was ill-advised. Justifiable would perhaps have been better, and that in the inception not in the continued waging of that war. It’s the aim of the war that troubles me. That aim is, I would presume, a stable and democratic Afghanistan. But is there really any such animal? Is it a country in any meaningful sense, rather than a collection of tribal groups with deep antipathies to each other? I can see billions being poured into this war, thousands of allied lives lost, (as well as tens of thousands of a mixture of Taliban and civilians - try sorting them out), all ending up with an ignominious withdrawal accompanied by crows of derision from the Afghans themselves. As for the Western side pursuit of destroying opium cultivation, that will happen when we have total control of Afghanistan and we supply the farmers with an equally profitable crop to raise. In other words that isn’t going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/119 "2009-07-09T09:49:10Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > It’s the aim of the war that troubles me. That aim is, I would presume, a stable and democratic Afghanistan. But is there really any such animal? Is it a country in any meaningful sense, rather than a collection of tribal groups with deep antipathies to each other? There’s also the ethnic divide. Britain drew a line on a map splitting the Pashtun’s. They didn’t like it. they still don’t. And they don’t like the other ethnicities. Add in the backwards even by fundamentalist Islam standards Islamic fundamentalism that sees even the existence of a girl getting education as a cause for throwing acid in the face and you realise we are not just trying to build a house on sand we are trying to build it from imaginary bricks. And every wedding we bomb, every family we slaughter because we think there might have been some target in the area creates dozens of new foes. That’s how societies built around vengeance work. And they are not known for their live and let live attitude. Start a vendetta and it’ll never stop. Add in the fact they all perceive us as a Xtian army too. Siding with the northern enemies of the Pashtun as we’ve installed the rightly hated and reviled warlords back in power. Maybe, back in 2001, if we had not allowed ourselves to be diverted it could have been done. But now - the horse has bolted, the boat has sailed and the shit has hit the fan with no do-overs. This war cannot be won. Not without us becoming monsters. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107/120 "2009-07-09T10:39:20Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Add in the backwards even by fundamentalist Islam standards Islamic fundamentalism that sees even the existence of a girl getting education as a cause for throwing acid in the face and you realise we are not just trying to build a house on sand we are trying to build it from imaginary bricks. While that may be true of some particularly nasty Taliban adherents, I think it is highly unfair to paint all Afghanis with such a broad brush. The [poll](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf) I linked to earlier showed fairly strong (not overwhelming, but still strong) support for women holding jobs, getting an education, holding government office, and voting. And that support has increased over time. (See Q42 at the end of the document.) Advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan because it seems to be an unfixable shithole of fundamentalists is an unfounded and bigoted argument. (Yes, I noticed the strong support for women wearing the burqa as well; it’s not particularly germane to the arguments around the justification of the war but I would argue that, given the somewhat more liberal attitudes towards women’s positions in society, the burqa is seen as an expression of religious faith rather than a direct attempt at women’s oppression.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-the-war-in-afghanistan-a-good-war/502107.md?page=7)